I guess I agree with this too, but there's a big problem with the term "sustainable": Who gets to define what is "sustainable" and what isn't? Al Gore? Most of the people who use the term "sustainable" aren't using it the way you are, instead they're leftists who just hate SUVs, suburbs, strip malls, people who own land and want to do stuff on it, etc. So they define all of these as anathema to "sustainability" and there you go.
It's one thing to observe that societies which squander resources and pollute like USSR did tend to collapse and/or become belligerent. It's quite a leap to go from there to suggesting that central leaders can consciously plan how to be "sustainable" in all situations. Seems to me a big problem with the USSR's "unsustainability" was that they had too much central control, not too little.
One way to improve "sustainability" of, say, land usage would be to reinforce private property rights (landowners have little incentive to use their land in an "unsustainable" fashion unless government regulations exist to make that an appealing option...). Having Colin Powell sound off about the Need For Sustainable Policy doesn't exactly help achieve this state of affairs; it may event do harm rather than good if it convinces yet more people that the solution to all things is to hand control over to government.... IMHO
I guess I agree with this too, but there's a big problem with the term "sustainable": Who gets to define what is "sustainable" and what isn't? Al Gore? Most of the people who use the term "sustainable" aren't using it the way you are, instead they're leftists who just hate SUVs, suburbs, strip malls, people who own land and want to do stuff on it, etc. So they define all of these as anathema to "sustainability" and there you go.
I think that the leaders of most developing countries might have the right concept of "sustainability" in mind. (China being a marked exception.) In order to increase the standard-of-living of citizens, you have to grow the economy technologically while at the same time seeking to do it via environmentally sound and efficient methods. The USA reached its level of economic power via nonsustainable development, due to a overabundance of natural resources (which in many cases we still have), and with room to grow and expand. We're now seeing increasing disharmony where standard-practice development patterns are conflicting with environmental and conservation regulations, notably the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, that were conceived when the "bad" aspects of rapid industrial and economic growth were first clearly perceived. In developing countries, rapidly increasing populations have made things much worse than they ever were in the United States, due to a combination of two factors: less resources and less room. So they have to grow their economies technologically while avoiding the "squander phase" of economic growth that characterized the USA, and to a lesser extent, Europe. The fact is, they probably can, provided they are given the proper incentives and well-directed assistance. I don't think that the World Bank provide well-directed assistance.
It's one thing to observe that societies which squander resources and pollute like USSR did tend to collapse and/or become belligerent. It's quite a leap to go from there to suggesting that central leaders can consciously plan how to be "sustainable" in all situations. Seems to me a big problem with the USSR's "unsustainability" was that they had too much central control, not too little.
Excellent observation. The central control structure of the USSR was focused on results, not on seeking the right way to develop; hence, the leaders put pressure on the underlings to produce, produce, produce at all costs, leading to egregious problems. The one thing that Russia still has going for it is an excess of land and a lower population. They might be able to reverse some of the previous mistakes. Otherwise, to be an effective strategy, "sustainable development" needs to be a framework model rather than a mandated structure. The framework model concept means that economic growth can implement sustainable (i.e., efficient) technology and methods when addressing a particular growth topic (such as power generation). Rather than saying "do this", the framework model would indicate "these methods have the highest likelihood of success".
One way to improve "sustainability" of, say, land usage would be to reinforce private property rights (landowners have little incentive to use their land in an "unsustainable" fashion unless government regulations exist to make that an appealing option...).
Absolutely. One of the chief failures of socialist systems is that they offer no incentive for private profit. (We can observe what happens when profit becomes too much of a motivation, but that's a different debate.) One necessary aspect of sustainable development would have to be that individuals and small groups (i.e. families) will benefit from it, where "benefit" includes such factors as health and economic status.
Having Colin Powell sound off about the Need For Sustainable Policy doesn't exactly help achieve this state of affairs; it may event do harm rather than good if it convinces yet more people that the solution to all things is to hand control over to government.... IMHO
True, but I don't think his statement went that far; he underscored the threat that is posed by nonsustainable development. We have to be concerned, for example, about chronic water shortages and pollution in China; where would they look to alleviate such shortages?